SCRIPTA JUDAICA CRACOVIENSIA
Vol. 11 (2013)
pp. 79–96
doi:10.4467/20843925SJ.13.009.1305
WHAT DOES TEL SHALEM HAVE TO DO WITH THE BAR KOKHBA REVOLT?*
Menahem Mor
(University of Haifa/University of Denver)
Key words: Tel Shalem, Bar Kokhba Revolt, Galilee, Beth Shean, Caesarea, Petra, Dura Europos,
Hadrian, Tineius Rufus, legio X Fretensis, legio VI Ferrata
Abstract: In the research on the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-136 CE); one of the central subjects that
were given prominent attention was the territorial extent of the second revolt. During all the years
of research on this geographical question, two schools of thought were formed. One of them is
that of the maximalists, who claim that the revolt spread through the entire Provincia Judaea and
even beyond it into neighboring provinces such as Provincia Arabia in the south and Provincia
Syria in the north. The second one is that of the minimalists, who restrict the revolt to the area of
the Judaean hills and their immediate environs. The role of the Galilee region in the second revolt
was discussed in great depth and centered on the question of whether the Galilee had taken part in
the revolt. Since 1999, Professor Werner Eck of the University of Cologne focused on the power
and range of this revolt from the Roman perspective. His general conclusion was that the second
revolt was a central event in the history of the Roman Empire. Large military units participated
in the event, which spread all over the province and even beyond. The rebels caused the Romans
enormous casualties. They were forced to subdue the revolt savagely, causing the rebels massive
losses. The revolt had a strong influence on the Roman Empire, and caused heavy damage to the
Roman army that had immediate effects as well as long-term implications. His conclusions were
based on a study of a variety of subjects including the archaeological discoveries from Tel Shalem,
situated in the Beth Shean Valley, two kilometers south of Kibbutz Tirat Zvi and about 12 kilometers south of Scythopolis. The finds consisted of parts of a bronze statue and a head that was
identified as that of the Roman emperor Hadrian, and a monumental inscription which had been
inscribed in three lines on an arch that was 11 meters wide. According to W. Eck, these findings
testify to the participation of the north, the Jordan Valley and the Galilee in the Second Revolt;
and that the “Galilee felt the revolt more than has hitherto been conceded. A decisive battle may
have been won here, not far from Caparcotna, the camp of the Second Legion in Judaea” (Eck
1999). This paper will re-examine the evidence from Tel Shalem, and other places in Galilee,
mainly the findings from Kh. El-hamam in eastern Galilee, findings that were used to include
the Galilee Region in the geographical expansion of the revolt. We will study anew the historical
background for the erection of the Tel Shalem inscription, the various epigraphic interpretations,
and other evidence and its implications for the study of the revolt. Our study will question some
of the broadening assumptions of the revolt, and will leave out Galilee in general, and Tel Shalem
in particular, from the geographical scope of the Bar Kokhba Revolt.
*
A shorter version of the paper was delivered at the Batchelder Conference for Biblical Archaeology,
University of Nebraska at Omaha, 10-12 November 2011.
80
MENAHEM MOR
In the research on the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-136 CE), one of the central subjects
that were given prominent attention was the territorial extent of this second revolt. During all the years of research on this geographical question, two schools of thought were
formed. One of them is that of the maximalists, who claim that the revolt spread through
the entire Provincia Judaea and even beyond it, into neighboring provinces such as
Provincia Arabia in the south, and Provincia Syria in the north. The second is that of the
minimalists, who restrict the revolt to the area of the Judaean hills and their immediate
environs. The role of the Galilee region in the second revolt was discussed in great depth
and centered on the question of whether the Galilee had taken part in the revolt.
During the discussion entitled “The Jewish Settlements in the Galilee in the Yavneh
and Bar Kokhba Period,” held in 1977 with the participation of Aharon Oppenheimer,
Moshe David Herr, Shmuel Safrai, Gideon Foerster, Yoram Zafrir and David Rokeach
and published in Hebrew in Cathedra, Oppenheimer summed up the discussion regarding the participation of Galilee in the Bar Kokhba Revolt as follows:
Galilee did not take an active part specifically in this revolt, either because it was instigated for
the sake of Jerusalem and even its aim and slogan was the ‘Freedom of Jerusalem,’ or because
of the watchful eyes of the Roman authorities in the Galilee. This means that the camps and
fortresses that were set up in the Galilee in the intervening period between the two revolts
obstructed to a certain extent the ability of the Galileans to participate fully and actively in the
Bar Kokhba revolt. However, it is possible—and even probable—that there also were some
incidents of rebellion in the Galilee during the Bar Kokhba revolt.1
In rejection of this conclusion, Herr claimed that:
As in a number of cases in historical research, we unfortunately have to be content with the
decision that there is no final proof in this matter, and it would therefore benefit more from
denial rather than from affirmation.2
In spite of Herr’s suggestion to refrain from further discussion on the subject, the
book that I published in 1991 gave a comprehensive appraisal of the part played by
the Galilee in the second revolt based on literary, archaeological and numismatic evidence and reached the conclusion that during the years 132-136 CE no significant events
took place in the Galilee that indicated its participation in the revolt.3
Since this is not the subject of the paper, I shall not use the many sources and testimonies that could be interpreted as evidence for incidents of the second revolt in the Galilee.
Nor shall I deal with the differences between the population in Judaea and the population
in the Galilee, which has been interpreted as a possible factor that inhibited Galilean
Jewry from taking part in the second revolt. The discussion over the Bar Kokhba revolt
flourished during the 1980s and 1990s; the studies were devoted to a variety of subjects,
and the question about the part played by the Galilee and its population became a “closed
question.”
In 1999, a “landmark” article was published on the second revolt, written by Werner
Eck of the University of Cologne, a renowned scholar on Roman ancient history in gen1
2
3
Oppenheimer 1977: 63.
Herr 1977: 73.
Mor 1991.
What Does Tel Shalem Have to Do with the Bar Kokhba Revolt?
81
eral, and particularly Roman military diplomas. The article, entitled “The Bar Kokhba
Revolt: The Roman Point of View,”4 focused on the power and range of this revolt from
the Roman perspective. His general conclusion was that the second revolt was a central
event in the history of the Roman Empire. Large military units participated in the event,
which spread all over the province and even beyond. The rebels caused the Romans
enormous casualties. The Romans were forced to subdue the revolt savagely, causing
the rebels massive losses. The revolt had a strong influence on the Roman Empire, and
brought heavy damage to the Roman army that had immediate effects as well as longterm implications. His conclusions were based on a study of five subjects:
1. The transference of Julius Severus, the Governor of Provinica Britannia, to command the defeated Roman army in Provincia Judaea.
2. Compulsory conscription throughout the Empire for various units in the Roman
army as a result of Roman losses in Judaea.
3. Hadrian’s granting of decorations for excellence to the governors of neighboring
provinces, Arabia and Syria, for their outstanding performance in battles within
their area of command and also for their part in suppressing the revolt in Judaea.
In addition, on Hadrian taking the title of Imperator for the second time.
4. The name Provincia Judaea was changed to Provincia Syria-Palaestina by Hadrian in reaction to the harrowing events that occurred during the revolt in Judaea.
5. The archaeological findings from Tel Shalem as testifying to the participation of
the north, the Jordan Valley and the Galilee in the revolt.
In his summing up of the evidence from Tel Shalem, he concluded that:
Galilee felt the revolt more than has hitherto been conceded. A decisive battle may have been
won here, not far from Caparcotna, the camp of the Second Legion in Judaea.5
At a conference held in Princeton in 2001, Glen Bowersock, a distinctive epigraphist
and professor of Classical Studies at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton University, criticized Eck’s article, discussing at length mainly Eck’s epigraphic interpretation of the Tel Shalem findings.6 In my lecture at the same conference, I also rejected
point by point the inferences made by Eck regarding the subjects I noted above,7 and
arrived at the conclusion that the revolt took place in fairly restricted areas, and that in
view of the evidence in hand the Galilee did not take part in the second revolt. Though
Eck has persisted in a series of additional articles to argue that the revolt was very powerful, and expanded his hypothesis concerning the points he made earlier,8 I decided to
devote this paper only to the last point, and to the question: “What does Tel Shalem have
to do with the Bar Kokhba revolt?”
What are the findings from Tel Shalem that in Eck’s opinion testify to the great importance of this site during the course of the second revolt? Tel Shalem is situated in
the Beth Shean Valley, two kilometers south of Kibbutz Tirat Zvi and about 12 kilo4
Eck 1999: 76-89.
Eck 1999: 88.
6
Bowersock 2003: 171-180
7
Mor 2003: 107-131.
8
Eck’s considerations were repeated in different versions in various places: Eck 1999: 76-89; 2001a:
46-63; 2001b: 45; 2003a:123-144; 2003b:153-170; 2007: 49-54; 2012: 249-265.
5
82
MENAHEM MOR
meters south of Scythopolis. The site has command over an important crossroads between Scythopolis, Jericho and Shechem and over the Scythopolis-Legio-Ptolemais
(Acre) road.
About 50 years ago, a building inscription of a vexillatio of the Legio VI Ferrata was
found within the area of Tel Shalem.9 Tzori and others linked the inscription with the
existence of a Roman camp in the place where a unit of the additional second legion had
already been stationed in Provincia Judaea since 117 CE. The command headquarters of
the second legion was located in the Roman camp in Legio (Kfar Othnai), in today’s region of the Megiddo crossroads. This region was a strategic location on the road between
Caesarea and Beth Shean, on the southern slopes of the Jezreel Valley. By 120 CE, roads
had already also been laid from the legion headquarters to the capital of the province,
Caesarea,10 as well as to Beth Shean,11 Sepphoris,12 and Acre.13
Gideon Foerster, an emeritus professor of archaeology at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, described with much excitement how he was urgently invited by his student,
a member of Tirat Zvi, to come to the kibbutz after a guest from New York had made
a discovery with a metal detector near Tel Shalem on July 25, 1975. The find consisted
of parts of a bronze statue and a head that was identified as that of the Roman emperor
Hadrian. Later on, more statue fragments and another head were also found in the area.
In view of these finds, Foerster then conducted three short seasons of excavations in the
years 1976-1978.
In January/February 1977, one and a half kilometers northeast of the Roman camp in
Tel Shalem, three tombs were found unexpectedly, one of them built of cut stones that
were fragments of a huge inscription written in Latin.14 Foerster was a participant in the
aforementioned discussion, published in July 1977, entitled “The Galilee on the Eve of
the Bar Kokhba Revolt: Archaeological Evidence.” He noted that:
The place in which the statue and the inscription on it were found is surprising in itself, since
it was not known as a site of any significance. According to a probable reconstruction, the
inscription was written in honor of the victory over Bar Kokhba. But, as said before, this is
still merely a supposition.15
In the two articles published in 1999,16 Eck dealt extensively with the reconstruction
and deciphering of the monumental inscription which had been inscribed in three lines
on an arch that was 11 meters wide. The letters of the inscription were gigantic in height:
41 cm in the first line, 24 cm in the second, and 18-19 cm in the third. From the inscrip9
Tzori 1971: 53-54. On the inscription: VEXILLTO/LEG VI/FERR see also: Hadashot Archeologiot
57-58 (April 1976): 17-18; Hadashot Archeologiot 65-66 (April 1978): 9 (Hebr.).
10
On the roads to Caesarea see: Roll & Ayalon 1986: 113-134; Roll & Ayalon: 1986/1987: 156-157;
Peleg 1990: 19-32; Roll 1996: 556-557; 1999: 109-113, esp. note 6; Peleg 2002: 141-148; Tepper 2004:
47-82; Roll 2011: 239-256; Tepper 2011: 257-274 (with an extensive bibliography).
11
Isaac & Roll 1982: 156-157; Roll & Ayalon 1986: 113-134.
12
Hekker 1961: 175-186; Isaac & Roll, 1979a: 54-66 (= Isaac 1998: 182-195; Postscript, 196-197);
Isaac & Roll 1979b: 149-156 (= Isaac 1998: 198-205; Postscript, 206-207); Isaac & Roll 2004: 41-54; Rea
1980: 220-221; Isaac & Roll 131-132 (= Isaac 1998: 208-209; Postscript, 210).
13
Ibid.
14
See Foerster, Arubas & Mevorach 2008.
15
Foerster 1977: 80.
16
Eck 1999a: 87-88; Eck & Foerster 1999: 294-313.
What Does Tel Shalem Have to Do with the Bar Kokhba Revolt?
83
tion and the fact that it was a dedication to Hadrian written in Latin, Eck inferred that this
was part of a colossal arch. Although only a quarter of the letters in the inscription were
found in the area, Eck managed to reconstruct it on the basis of the accepted formula for
inscriptions of this kind:
IMP CAES · DIVI· TRAIANI·PAR
THICIF·DIVI·NERVAE·NEP·TRAIANO·HADRIANO·AUG
PONTIFMAX · TRIB· POT· XX ··IMP· II·COS· III· P· P· S· P· Q· R17
Line 1: The Caesar and Imperator, son of the divine Trajan
Line 2: Conqueror of the Parthians, the nephew of the divine Nerva.
Trainus Hadrianus Augustus
Line 3: Pontifex Maximus, twenty times with tribune authority,
imperator for the second time, consul for the third time, father of
the homeland, the Senate, and the people of Rome (the dedicators
of the arch).
Eck’s reconstruction and completions of the titles of Hadrian, mainly in the third
line of the inscription, have direct implications for the dating of the inscription. Since
Hadrian had the authority of a tribune for the twentieth time, he was consul for the third
time, and especially imperator for the second time (Imperator iterum, second acclamation as Imperator), all these numbers indicate that the year 136 CE is the definite date for
the engraving of the inscription in the Tel Shalem camp. That is to say, the date tells us
that the arch with the inscription engraved on it was erected after the suppression of the
Bar Kokhba revolt.
The arch was therefore a Roman triumphal arch raised for the victory over the Bar
Kokhba rebels, and the initiative for its erection was that of the Roman government that
intentionally raised it in the war zone.
The date, however, raises a number of important questions that Eck himself had
asked. Firstly, why was the arch with the inscription to honor Hadrian erected in such
a peripheral location? Secondly, who was the person who instigated the erection of the
arch and dedicated it to the emperor?
Before answering these questions, let us present the proposal made by Bowersock.
He filled in the missing letters of the third line in the inscription in a different manner.
In his view there are only two chronological indications in the inscription. The first was
that Hadrian had been given the authority of a tribune for the 14th time, and the second
was having been a consul for the third time. These two dates point to the year 130 CE,
the time of Hadrian’s visit in the region, which means that the arch and the dedication
inscription may have been related to the occasion of Hadrian’s tour of the region.18
Let us return to the questions mentioned above, and begin specifically with the date.
The description of Hadrian as the “imperator for the second time” (IMP II) [second ac-
17
Line 1: Imp(eratori) Cae[s(ari) divi T]ra[iani Par-]; Line 2: th[i]ci f(ilio) d[ivi Nervae nep(oti) Tr]aiano
[Hadriano Aug(usto)]; Line 3: pon[t]if(i) m[ax(imo), trib(unicia pot(estate) XX?, imp(eratori)I]I, co(n)s(uli)
[III, p(atri) p(atriae) S(enatus) P(opulus) q(ue) R(omanus)?].
18
Bowersock 2003: 172.
84
MENAHEM MOR
clamation as Imperator] in the reconstruction by Eck determines that the dating of the
inscription should not be earlier than 136 CE. Bowersock continued:
But at this point of his argument he never told his readers why he thought the vertical hasta
before COS has to belong to a second imperatorial acclamation at all, instead of the numeral
for the tribunician power, the title that would certainly have followed the pontificate … Eck
had noted of the hasta: “Diese Zahl könnte zur tribunicia potestas gehört haben oder zu einer
Imperatorenakklamation.” But he never again returned to the first of these possibilities.19
According to Bowersock, Eck was aiming for a later date, and therefore rejected the
possibility that the arch was erected by the legion with the argument that there was not
enough space for inscribing its name, a claim that did not convince Bowersock.20
On the question of who had dedicated the inscription, Eck gives prominence to the
fact that it was engraved in Latin, whereas this was a region in which the lingua franca of
the provincial population was Greek. In Eck’s view, the use of Latin negates the possibility that those who wrote the inscription were from the neighboring city of Beth Shean.
In his opinion, the gigantic lettering and the Latin language indicated that whoever
dedicated the arch was a Latin speaker with the authority to erect an arch and dedicate it
to the emperor, and that the area in which the arch was raised had to have been the site of
an event of extraordinary achievement. Therefore, the name or title of the dedicator must
have “closed” the inscription and appeared at the end of the third line.
According to these criteria, Eck notes two authorities that could have fulfilled these
“conditions.” The first is the governor of Provincia Judaea. The second is one of the
legions permanently stationed in Provincia Judaea: Legio X Fretensis or Legio VI Ferrata. However, he rejects both proposals for the same reason, which is the lack of space
in the third line of the inscription for the names of the governor and his titles, or for the
name of the legion.21
According to Bowersock, if we limit ourselves to the two titles of Hadrian, that of
holding the authority of a tribune 14 times and being a consul for the third time, than
there are enough gaps in the third line that allow us to add the name of the legion that
erected the arch. Following this suggestion, it is possible to add the name of the legion
to the inscription: LEG X FRET.22
Concerning the possibility that the dedicator of the inscription was one of the two
legions stationed in Judaea, apart from the claim about the lack of space in the inscription for the appearance of their names, Eck raises another argument to reject this option.
In the history of the Roman legions there is only one example in which a legion honored
an emperor. This event occurred during the Parthian wars near Dura Europos, when the
Legio III Cyrenaica which had participated in Trajan’s wars against Parthia dedicated an
arch erected a mile away from the walls of Dura Europos in honor of Trajan’s victory
over the Parthians. It was built before Trajan received the additional title of Parthicus,
and therefore should be dated before the year 116 CE.23
19
20
21
22
23
Bowersock 2003: 174 and note 3.
Bowersock 2003: 175.
Eck 2003b: 159-162.
Bowersock 2003: 175; Abramovitch 2011: 94-102; 239-241.
Gould 1933: 56-65; 1936: 480-482. See also: AE 1982, 904; Bowersock 1982: 198.
What Does Tel Shalem Have to Do with the Bar Kokhba Revolt?
85
Since the above example is a solitary one, Eck ruled out the possibility that the names
of one of the legions—the Tenth Fretensis or the Sixth Ferrata—could have appeared in
the third line of the Tel Shalem inscription. This argument is totally unacceptable to me,
and I shall ask not even with a hint of cynicism whether the soldiers of the Third Legion
Cyrenaica, who had indeed dedicated an arch to Trajan, were at all interested in creating a precedent, or if they even discussed the question that an arch could not be erected
because in the history of the legions it had not previously been experienced. Or perhaps
they were absolutely forbidden to erect an arch, because nothing like this had ever been
done before?
Apparently, since 2005 there was a possible additional example for a legion honoring an Emperor, namely the monumental inscription found in Jerusalem at the Haram
al-Sharif reported by Tibur Grüll.24 His restoration, completion and interpretation of the
inscription pointed to a victory arch, that its building was initiated by Lucius Flavius
Silva, the governor of Judaea, the commander of the legion X Fretensis, and the conqueror of Masada. At the end of the great Revolt 70 CE the legion X Fretensis built an
arch and engraved an inscription honoring Emperors Vespasian and Titus in honor of
their victory in Judaea.25
However, following Cotton and Eck’s criticism of Grüll’s conclusions, we must reject the inscription as possible evidence for the phenomenon of a legion erecting an arch
to honor the emperor. According to Cotton and Eck, this is a building inscription which
belongs to an arch, and they dated it after the foundation of the Colonia Aelia Capitolina
(131 CE), which erected the arch to honor the reigning emperor.26
After Eck rejected the possibility of a legion as the builder of an honorary arch,
he raised the third possibility, of completing the inscription in an entirely different direction. In his opinion, there was enough space in the third line only for the following
letters: SPQR, which is an abbreviation for Senatus Populusque Romanus, meaning that
the arch was built by the decision and agreement of the people of Rome and according
to the decree of the Senate.
There is indeed some evidence that the Senate and the people of Rome were the ones
who gave their consent to erect large monuments for special achievements, mainly after
some significant military victory.27 All the examples that Eck noted were from much
earlier periods. The last decision of the Senate to erect a triumphal arch was made in
49 CE, to commemorate the military achievements of Claudius in Britain. The arch was
erected on the shores of Gesoriacum, from where the emperor set out on his expedition
to conquer Britain.28
These examples show that more than 90 years had passed since the Senate used its
authority to erect and dedicate a triumphal arch for military achievements. The question
is: Were there no worthy military achievements to be commemorated during this period
24
Grüll 2005: 16-17.
Grüll 2006: 183-200. See also Abramovich 2011: 159-163; 98 note 368, who argued that in his article
of 2003 Eck was not aware of this inscription.
26
Eck 2005: 160-165; Cotton & Eck 2009: 97*-118*; Eck 2011: 45-53; Eck & Cotton 2012: 20-22.
27
Eck 2003a: 143, cites examples which are all dated early—from the days of Augustus and Tiberius,
and the last example is dated to the year 43 CE, in the days of Claudius. This indicates that nearly a hundred
years had passed since the SPQR made use of its authority.
28
Barrett 1991: 1-19; Osgood 2011: 94-96.
25
86
MENAHEM MOR
of time? And if we return to the example we mentioned about Dura Europos, were Trajan’s military achievements not worthy of an arch being dedicated to him by the Senate?
Concerning our case, in Eck’s opinion it was the SPQR who dedicated the arch to
honor Hadrian in Tel Shalem, and the reason for this was his victory in the Bar Kokhba
revolt, a revolt that in his view had spread into Arabia and even into Syria. The victory
restored Roman self-confidence, and the monumental structure testifies to the renewed
power of Rome, which is why the Latin language was used. In his words:
All this makes it quite certain that the arch was built in the context of the Bar Kokhba revolt,
and had nothing to do with Hadrian’s first visit to the region.29
What, according to Eck, does all this include?
1. Cities can erect arches in honor of the visit of the emperor, but the Latin here puts
Scythopolis out of the picture.
2. There are no examples in which legions or the SPQR even set up arches for an
imperial visit to a province.
3. It is not possible to interpret a broken-up and disjointed inscription without having examples or parallels from other provinces.30
Eck connected the great military achievement to the description of Hadrian as “imperator for the second time” (IMP II), and therefore he adds it to the third line of the
inscription. He found a complete correlation between the end of the second revolt,
the declaration of Hadrian as imperator for the second time, and the erection of the arch
in Tel Shalem.
He ends his discussion on this matter, questioning why the arch was erected at Tel
Shalem. Since this site has no value in itself, the location could not have been chosen at
random. Therefore, the only reason for its choice as the site for a war memorial was that
this location was part of a battlefield in the second revolt.
According to Eck, participants in the Senate session at which the subject of the arch
at Tel Shalem was discussed were senior army officers who had taken part in suppressing the revolt, and were persons of military authority to explain to the Senate why Tel
Shalem deserved this honor. “Tel Shalem was the right choice. Tel Shalem was not chosen arbitrarily.”31 At the end of his discussion on the inscription, Eck sums up by saying:
… the arch bears witness to the intensity of the revolt and its impact on Rome; and conversely
to the enormous relief, deeply felt when it was over.32
With much cynicism, Bowersock makes a correlation between the inscription in Tel
Shalem and the inscription in Petra. Some of Eck’s conclusions are derived from the size
of the Latin letters in the inscription, but the dimensions of the inscription in Tel Shalem
are dwarfed by those of the inscription that Eck did not know at the time, from the area
of the large temple in Petra.33 He keeps on asking who set up this Latin inscription. The
29
Eck 2003b: 158.
Eck 2003b: 158-159.
31
Eck 2003b: 162 and note 34, in which he refers to p. 18; however, the reference is to an article by Peter
Schäfer that deals with the second revolt and the Rabbis!
32
Eck 2003b: 162.
33
Tracy 1998: 370-375; 1999: 56-58.
30
What Does Tel Shalem Have to Do with the Bar Kokhba Revolt?
87
Senate and the people of Rome? And in honor of which military victory?34 Bowersock
continues by asking how this could be, if the Senate and the people initiated the monumental arch and inscription that no evidence of any kind remains in the written sources.
Following his restoration of the inscription, Bowersock dates the arch and the inscription to the year 130 CE. In his view there is no space difficulty at the end of the third
line of the inscription, and therefore the name of the legion can be entered at the end of
the line, either the Tenth Fretensis or the Sixth Ferrata, as Eck had done himself when he
discussed the various possible completions of the inscription.
In his reconstruction of the third line, Bowersock prefers the name of the legion Tenth
Fretensis.35 However, I rather add the name of the legion Sixth Ferrata, which was the
second legion stationed in Provincia Judaea since the year 123 CE. The camp of this
legion was in Legio (Kfar Othnai).36 From the evidence mentioned above, the camp in
Tel Shalem apparently served as a camp for a Vexillatio of this legion.
In my opinion, the arch and inscription in honor of Hadrian are connected with the
visit of the emperor to the region in 130 CE.
Kenneth Holum and Layton Lehmann reconstructed Hadrian’s itinerary in the area.37
Eck criticizes and negates the reconstruction of Lehmann and Holum with the argument
that they claimed that Hadrian had visited Caesarea, even though they had no direct
evidence for this visit.38
However, do the inscriptions on the aqueduct to Caesarea not hint to the building and
restoration of it during Hadrian’s visit to the city? Recently, Cotton and Eck together, as
well as each of them separately, published inscriptions from Caesarea in one of which the
name Tineius Rufus, the governor of Judaea in the years 130-133, was mentioned for
the first time apart from its reference in rabbinical literature:
To Imperator Caesar Trianus Hadrianus Augustus, son of the divine Traianus Parthicus grandson of the divine Nerva, Pontifex Maximus, with tribunician power for the fourteenth (?) time,
consul for the third time, father of his country, the benificiarii of Tineius Rufus, imperial legate
with praetorian rank, (have erected a statue)?39
The Caesarea inscription is a dedicatory inscription to Hadrian, dedicated by the
beneficarii of Tineius Rufus. The inscription in Latin was one meter long and had a lifesized statue of Hadrian placed above it. The inscription should be connected with the
headless statue found in Caesarea.40 Cotton and Eck dated the inscription and the placing
of the statue to the year 130 CE, when the emperor visited the province and its capital.
The inscription confirms the estimation made by Kenneth Holum, in an article which
34
Bowersock 2003: 177.
Bowersock 2003: 175.
36
Tepper 2007; Adams/David/Tepper 2013.
37
Lehmann & Holum 2000: 12-13; Holum 1992: 51-61. See also: Birley 2003.
38
Eck 2003b: 155 and note 12. See Halfmann 1986: 207. He omitted the name of Caesarea from
Hadrian’s tour.
39
CIIP II, 1276; Cotton & Eck 2001: 215-238; Cotton & Eck 2006: 31-52. See also: AE 2003, 107.
The Latin inscription: [Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) divi Traiani Parthici f(ilio) divi Nervae nep(oti) Traiano
Hadriano]| Aug(usto)] pont(ifici) ma[x(imo), tr(ibunicia) pot(estate) XIV (?) co(n)s(uli) III p(atri) p(atriae)] |
b(eneficiarii) Tinei Rufi [leg(ati) Aug(usti) pr(o) praet(ore)--|--].
40
Avi-Yonah 1970-71: 203-208.
35
88
MENAHEM MOR
reconstructs the visit of Hadrian to the region, that the emperor also visited Caesarea. In
view of this, perhaps Holum’s article deserves more serious consideration, along with his
reconstruction of the Adventus of the Emperor in the region.
Various sources present Hadrian as the “wandering emperor,” who spent many years
during his reign traveling throughout the empire and visiting many cities and provinces.41
Hadrian visited Judaea in the spring and early summer of 130 CE on his way from Syria
to Egypt.42 After spending the winter in Antioch, he continued on to Palmyra.43 From
Damascus he entered the region of Provincia Arabia,44 arriving in Bosra, the capital
city, where the Third Legion Cyrenaica was encamped. He then followed the Via Nova
Traiana along the limes through Philadelphia (Amman) to Petra, which in honor of his
visit changed its name to Hadriana Petra.45 From Petra he returned along the Via Nova to
Gerasa, where the city dedicated a triumphal arch to Hadrian.
According to the inscription engraved on the arch, it should be dated to the year
130 CE. On the same occasion, three statues were set up in the city in honor of the emperor.46 From there he continued on through the cities of the Decapolis, and near Pella
he probably crossed the River Jordan into the Jordan Valley and Provincia Judaea. The
visit of the emperor was commemorated by coins with the inscription ADVENTVI AUG
IVDAEAE.47 Scythopolis was apparently the emperor’s first stop. In a number of inscriptions he is connected to the city, and should probably be dated to 130, and Hadrian’s visit
to the region.
1. A dedicatory inscription mentioning Hadrian’s visit to Judaea and Scythopolis.48
41
Dio Cassius 69.5.2-3: “…and he aided the allied and subject cities most munificently. He had seen
many of them,—more, in fact, than any other emperor,—and he assisted practically all of them, giving
to some a water supply, to others harbours, food, public works, money and various honours, differing the
different cities.”
42
See Dio Cassius 69.12.2; SHA Hadrian 14.4-6; Epiphanius of Salamis, De mensuris et ponderibus
14 (PG 53, 260-261).
43
CIS II, No. 3959 = Cantineau 1930: I, no. 2 = Dunant 1971: no. 44: Haddriane. This bilingual
inscription in Palmyrenian script is dated to 130/1. [MR]N HDRY[N’] ‘LH’ (Our Lord Hadrian, (the) God].
44
Mattingly & Sydenhman 1926: 452, 464: ADVENTVS AVG ARABIAE RESTITVTORI ARABIAE.
45
See coins: Spijkerman1978: 220-235; Bowersock 1983:110-111. See the papyrus documents from
Nahal Hever. On the change in the name of Petra, see: Yadin 1971: 248-249; Lewis 1989: no. 25, dated: 9 July
131, a countersummons issued by Babatha, l. 11: ¢δριανi Πέ{π}τρJ = Hadrianic Petra, and commentary
ad loc.: Lewis 1989: 112: “The Hadrianic epithet of Petra appears only in this document, which may be an
indication that the appellation was a recently bestowed honor, on the occasion of Hadrian’s visit there.” See
also: 5/6 Hev 25: Pap.Yadin 25.
46
For the inscription of the arch see: Welles 1938: no. 58. For the inscriptions on the statues, see nos.
143-145.
47
Mattingly 1936, III: 493-494, nos. 1655-1661. Mildenberg 1984: 97-98 argues that the adventus coins
were struck in the years 130-132.
48
The inscription has not yet been published, see: Mazor & Najjar 2007: xiii, 4: “He presumably visited
Nysa-Scythpolis at some point between the end of 129 and mid-130 CE. Inscriptions found in the agora
temples bear witness to this visit, the reception of which was hosted by the governor of the province, Tineius
Rufus.” In a private email dated April 11, 2012, Mazor mentioned that in the temple of Demeter and Kore
Persepphone two inscriptions were found, and still unpublished: one dedicated to Tineius Rufus’ wife, and
a second to his daughter. And an additional inscription dedicated to Hadrian; however, Rufus name is not
mentioned.
What Does Tel Shalem Have to Do with the Bar Kokhba Revolt?
89
2. A dedicatory inscription from Beth Shean dated to 130, dedicated by the soldiers
of the first cohort of the legion X Fretensis. The inscription was probably the base for
Hadrian’s statue.49
Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) Traiano
Hadriano Aug(usto)
p(atri) p(atriae) leg(io) X Fret(ensis) coh(ors) I
Since the title Pater Patriae was bestowed on Hadrian in 128, we can date the inscription to 130, during Hadrian’s visit to the region.50 Did the legate of legion X Fretensis send one of his units: the first cohorts to welcome the Emperor? To commemorate the
visit they erected a statue with the inscription.
3. Cotton and Eck noted two indirect epigraphic testimonies to this event. The city of
Scythopolis erected statues to honor the wife and daughter of Tineius Rufus and perhaps
also in his honor. The statues may have been set up during the visit to the city by the
governor and his family, who came to receive the emperor.51
4. Another testimony for the possible visit of the emperor in 130 CE in Scythopolis
was proposed in the research of Lea Di Segni and Benjamin Arubas. They found a Greek
inscription in March 2007, in the south gallery of the central court in the Rockefeller
Museum. The translation of the inscription is:
In imitation of Hadrian, Silvanus the most
Distinguished and spectabilis count and governor
Has built his own city
The inscription had originally come from Beth Shean, Silvanus was its governor
during the reign of Emperor Arcadius, and it is dated after the year 385 CE. According
to researchers, the inscription notes that Silvanus built the city in imitation of Hadrian’s
construction of it.
The rebuilding of the city in the 4th or 5th century is linked to the earthquake of
363 CE. Yet what does this 4th-century inscription have to do with the visit of the emperor to Scythopolis in 130 CE? Hadrian, more than any emperor, is known as the Founder
and Builder, and in the Land of Israel he founded Aelia Capitolina and built the highlevel aqueduct in Caesarea and in other places where no testimonial inscriptions remain.
Could it be that Hadrian’s part in building the city was still recalled in the Scythopolis
of the 4th century? Is this merely a literary comparison, or was it some real and wellestablished memory of Hadrian’s construction in the city? Archaeologists dated the
flourishing of the city as beginning in the 2nd century after the Bar Kokhba Revolt until
49
The inscription was first published by Clermont-Ganneau 1897: 171, as originating from Scythopolis.
In CIL III, 13589 the publishers claimed its origin to Samaria. In CIL III, 14155.14 it was corrected to the first
place of origin. For a picture of the inscription, see: Cornfled 1962: 347.
50
Eck 2003b: 156 and notes 15-16. He claimed that the title cannot serve as an indication of a date—
128—since the provincial population used the title before 128. Eck 2012: 262, argued that this inscription
should be considered a questionable one.
51
Cotton & Eck 2006: 50.
90
MENAHEM MOR
the reign of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius,52 but more recently have pushed the
date back to the time of Trajan and Hadrian and linked it with the visit of the emperor
in 130 CE.
In an appendix written by Arubas regarding the inscription under discussion, he asserted that the building of the central monument should be dated to the year 130 CE,
during Hadrian’s visit to the region, and should be compared with the triumphal arch in
Gerasa. Arubas suggests that in the rivalry between the two cities over the reputation of
the two, Scythopolis would not have ceded to Gerasa.53
Nevertheless, I agree with Eck that the inhabitants of Scythopolis had no connection
with the erection of the arch or its inscription in Tel Shalem. But the reason for this is not
because of the Greek or Latin language! In my opinion, during the preparations for the
visit of the emperor in the region, a unit of the Legio VI Ferrata set up the magnificent
arch and dedicated it to the visiting Emperor. These soldiers were Latin speakers, and
therefore they engraved the inscription in their own language. The arch and the inscription were in honor of the emperor who knew Greek, and was nicknamed Graeculus, but
the language of the dedicators of the arch was Latin!
Did the emperor actually visit the camp? This is a difficult question with no decisive
answer. Whatever the response may be, the monumental arch and its inscription are
a historical fact!
From Scythopolis or Tel Shalem, the emperor continued on the renovated road between Scythopolis and Legio,54 and visited the legion’s camp in Legio/ Caparcotna.55
It is not clear whether he went north to Sepphoris, which had changed its name to
Diocaesarea to honor the name of the emperor and the Greek god Zeus whom he highly
favored.56 Or perhaps he continued from Legio to Caesarea, the capital of the province.
We mentioned his visit to Caesarea above. Holum suggested linking the visit of 130 CE
to Hadrian’s promise to the inhabitants of Caesarea during his visit to improve the water supply to the city, which resulted in the construction of Channel B, the High Level
aqueduct.57
Evidence of this can be found in the inscriptions on the aqueduct, most of which mention the name of Hadrian, and there is no doubt that it was built in the year 130 CE in
honor of his visit to the city.58 Hadrian then went up to Jerusalem, and during his visit he
decided to found Aelia Capitolina.59 From Jerusalem he returned to the southern coastal
plain and visited Gaza, and from there he went to Egypt.60
52
Tsafrir & Forester 1992: 7; Tsafrir & Forester 1997: 89. The urban plan of Beth Shean should be
ascribed to the Roman period. The earliest Roman remains known to us, such as the first stage of the basilica
or the first foundations of the theatre, are probably from the 1st century CE. Most of the construction and
planning of the city should probably be attributed to the 2nd century CE, most likely during the reigns of
Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurelius, when the main period of florescence in the Roman East occurred.
53
Di Segni & Arubas 2009: 115*-124*.
54
Note that in 129 CE the road from Scythopolis to the Valley of Jezreel was renovated. See Isaac
& Roll 1979a: 57; 61 note 17.
55
Isaac & Roll 1979a: 58-61; Isaac & Roll 1979b: 33.
56
Hill 1914. See also Isaac & Roll 1979a: 63.
57
Holum 1992: 56-60.
58
On the inscriptions, see CIIP II, 1200-1209.
59
On the founding of Aelia Capitoline, see Magness 2011: 313-324.
60
On the visit to Gaza and Egypt, see Birley 2003.
What Does Tel Shalem Have to Do with the Bar Kokhba Revolt?
91
Di Segni used the following inscription as evidence of the emperor’s visit to Judaea.
Though the original location of the marble inscription is difficult to trace, its content
were linked with the visit of Hadrian.61 The inscription reads as follows:
To the Olympian gods; for the preservation of the Emperor Caesar Traianus Hadrianus Augustus, father of the motherland, the savior and benefactor, villagers of Caparbanaia.
Di Segni suggested two possible identifications of Kafar Banaya: Khirbet Baniya
(Horvat Binaya) in Western Samaria, to the east of Caesarea; or Khirbet B’inna (Baenna Ib’anna) in Southern Samaria. According to her, in the 2nd century, in a village with
a mixed population, the dedicators of the inscription called themselves “villagers” and
not “the villagers,” which shows their knowledge of the Greek language, or that they do
not represent the village population.
In a publication from 2003, Eck linked the inscription to Hadrian’s visit, concluding:
It reveals that the patterns of interrelations between ruler and subjects familiar from other
provinces were not as foreign to this province as is commonly assumed.62
However, in a recent publication based on Di Segni’s second publication from 2003,
he argued that the inscription is a modern forgery!63
Let us return to Tel Shalem. If we accept the conclusion that the soldiers of the Roman legion set up the arch and the inscription, all the questions that Eck raised above will
disappear! Neither the arch nor the inscription has anything to do with the second revolt,
since they were erected as early as 130 CE, two years before the outbreak of the
revolt. Even if new evidence exists of a more powerful impact by the second revolt than
we had previously thought, the inscription in Tel Shalem cannot testify to this!64
After the events of the Polemos of Kitos, the Romans brought a second legion to be
permanently stationed in Legio.65 Around it, they built a highly developed road system
in the region, with roads extending between Legio and Tel Shalem through Scythopolis,
from Legio to Diocaesarea and Tiberias, from Legio to Ptolemais (Acre), and another
road from Sepphoris to Tiberias. These roads prevented them from collaborating with the
inhabitants of Judaea.66
What is the significance of the arbitrary statement by Eck that a military victory was
achieved in the region of Tel Shalem, not far from Kfar Othnai, the camp of the second
legion to be stationed in Judaea? Against whom did they fight, and whom did they conquer? The road system in the region, including the road from Legio to Beth Shean and
Tel Shalem, prevented any possibility of a serious joining of forces between Jewish rebels from the Galilee and their Judaean brethren. Also, in view of the information we have
about the possible participation of the Galilee in the second revolt, it is not reasonable
61
Di Segni 1994: 579-584; SEG 44, 1361; AE 1994, 1781. For a different identification, see: Di Segni
2003: 335-340. Di Segni dealt with the same inscription several times. Her first identification of the village
should be ignored. In the second publication she identified the village as Kafr Banaya.
62
Eck 2003b: 156. Based on Di Segni 1994.
63
Eck 2012: 262 and note 52. He referred to a further forgery with the same text but on a bronze piece.
64
Bowersock 2003: 171.
65
Eck & Tepper 2001: 85-88.
66
See Roll 1976: 38-50; Isaac & Roll 1982a. For a site of the Roman Roads and Milestones in Judaea/
Palaestina, see: http://milestones.kinneret.ac.il.
92
MENAHEM MOR
to suppose that a battle was held in the Tel Shalem region that could be connected with
the Bar Kokhba revolt. The claim that battles could have been conducted even in regions
outside the control of the rebels is generally a correct one. But existing evidence points
to the fact that during the course of the second revolt, the preparatory stage was already
focused in regions that were under rebel control. In fact, the evidence indicates that they
acted against the Romans mainly in the areas in which they resided and where they set up
self-government, without widening the circle of conflict outside these areas.
An additional note:
Uzi Leibner recently reported on finds in Khirbet Wadi Hamam in the eastern Galilee
region, and notes among other things a hoard of coins that was found in Area B of the
excavation. The hoard contains sixty silver and bronze coins from the beginning of
the 2nd century CE. The silver dinarii are dated to the third consulate years of Hadrian,
119-138 CE, and a single coin with countermarks of Legio VI Ferrata which he dated
to the years 123-135 CE. Leibner very cautiously links the destruction layer at the site
to the Bar Kokhba revolt, or to the unrest among the Galilean Jews after the stationing
of the Sixth Legion in the area, apparently during the years 123-127 CE.67 Although the
coin hoard is of the Hadrianic period, no coins of the second revolt were found in it.
Also, if the temporary destruction layer at the site was connected with the stationing of
an additional legion in the Galilee region, then there is no direct link to the Bar Kokhba
revolt. It is also difficult to imagine that a small village in the Galilee reacted in opposition to the reinforcement by the Sixth Legion, which required military intervention that
caused damage to the village.
Contrary to Leibner’s hesitation over the participation of the Galilee in the second
revolt, in his book he notes explicitly that the results of the archaeological survey indicate that Jewish settlements in the Galilee were not damaged during the second century
CE, which implies that the Galilee did not take part in the Bar Kokhba revolt.68 From the
distribution pattern of the coins of the second revolt, it appears that they were in use only
in the areas under the control of Bar Kokhba.69 The fact that so far no large quantities of
the second revolt coins have been found in the Galilee clarifies that the abovementioned
attempts do not contribute anything to our discussion. We should not apportion much
importance to random finds of coins,70 and the absence of coin finds of the second revolt
period in the Galilee only strengthens the claim that the Galilee did not participate in the
Bar Kokhba revolt.
67
Leibner 2009b: 32, 40; 2011: 225-226.
Leibner 2009a: 345, 407.
69
Eshel 1995: 173-182.
70
An example that proves that we cannot attach too much significance to coincidental findings of coins
is the Bar Kokhba coins found at different Roman sites. See also Eshel, Zissu & Barkai: 2009-2010: 91-97.
68
What Does Tel Shalem Have to Do with the Bar Kokhba Revolt?
93
ABBREVIATIONS
AE – L’Année Épigraphique, Paris.
CIIP – H.M. Cotton, L. Di Segni, W. Eck et al. (eds.), Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palestinae,
vols. 3, Berlin – New York.
CIL – Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin.
SEG – Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, Leiden – Boston.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, M.J. David, J., Tepper, Y. (2013): Legio. Excavations at the Camp of the Roman Sixth Legion
in Israel, Biblical Archaeology Review 39.
Abramovich, A. (2011): Building and Construction Activities of the Legions in Roman Palestine 1st-4th
Centuries CE, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Haifa, Dept. of Archaeology, Haifa ( in Hebrew).
Applebaum, S. (1989): Tineius Rufus and Julius Severus, in: S. Applebaum, Judaea in Hellenistic and
Roman Times. Historical and Archaeological Essays, Leiden: 118-123.
Avi-Yonah, M. (1970-71): The Caesarea Porphyry Statue Found in Caesarea”, IEJ 20: 203-208 [= For
an Hebrew version, see: Avi-Yonah, The Caesarea Porphyry Statue, Eretz Israel 10 (1970): 50-52].
Birley, A.R. (2003): Hadrian’s Travels, in: L. de Blois et al. (eds.), The Representation and Perception
of Roman imperial Power. Proceedings of the Third Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Roman Empire c. 200 B.C.-A.D. 476), Rome, March 20-23, 2002, Amsterdam:
425-441.
Bowerscock, G.W. (1982): rev. of A. Spijkerman, The Coins of the Decapolis and Provincia Arabia,
Jerusalem 1978, Journal of Roman Studies 72: 197-198.
Bowersock, G.W. (1983): Roman Arabia, Cambridge, Mass.
Bowersock, G.W. (2003): The Tel Shalem Arch and P. Nahal Heer/Seiyal 8, in: P. Schäfer (ed.),
The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt Against Rome,
Tübingen: 171-180.
Cantineau, J. (1930): Inventaire des Inscriptions de Palmyre, Beyrouth.
Clermont-Ganneau, C. (1897): Études d’Archéologie orientale, vol. II, Paris.
Cornfled, G. (1962): Daniel to Paul: Jews in Conflict with Graeco-Roman Civilization, New York.
Cotton, H.M., Eck, W. (2001): Governors and their Personnel on Latin Inscriptions from Caesarea
Maritima, Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, VII, 7: 215-238.
Cotton, H.M., Eck, W. (2006): Governors and their Personnel on Latin Inscriptions from Caesarea
Maritima, Cathedra 122: 31-52 (Hebr.).
Cotton, H.M., Eck, W. (2009): An Imperial Arch in the Colonia Aelia Capitolina: A Fragment of a Latin
Inscription in the Islamic Museum of the Haram as-Sharif, in: J. Geiger et al. (eds.), Israel’s Land.
Papers Presented to Israel Shatzman on his Jubilee, Jerusalem: 97*-118*.
Di Segni, L.A. (1994): New Toponym in Southern Samaria, Liber Annuus 44: 579-584.
Di Segni, L.A. (2003): The Hadrianic Inscription from Southern Samaria, Liber Annuus 53: 335-340.
Di Segni, L. Arubas, B.Y. (2009): An Old-New Inscription from Beth Shean, in: L. Di Segni,
Y. Hirschfeld, J. Patrich, R. Talgam (eds.), Man Near a Roman Arch: Studies Presented to Prof.
Yoram Tsafrir, Jerusalem: 115*-124*.
Dunant, C. (1971): Le sanctuaire de Baalshmin a Palmyre, vol. III: Les inscriptions, Rome.
Eck, W. (1999): The Bar Kokhba Revolt: The Roman Point of View, Journal of Roman Studies
89: 76-89.
94
MENAHEM MOR
Eck, W. (2001a): Ein Spiegel der Macht. Lateinische Inschriften römischer Zeit in Iudaea/Syria Palestina, ZDPV 117: 46-63.
Eck, W. (2001b): Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), 28.12.2001, p. 45.
Eck, W. (2003a): The Language of Power: Latin in the Inscriptions of Iudaea/Syria Palestina, in:
L.H. Schiffman (ed.), Semitic Papyrology in Context: A Climate of Creativity. Papers from a New
York University conference marking the retirement of Baruch A. Levine, Leiden: 123-144.
Eck, W. (2003b): Hadrian, the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and the Epigraphic Transmission, in: P. Schäfer
(ed.), Bar Kokhba Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt Against Rome,
Tübingen: 153-170.
Eck, W. (2005): Ehret den Kaiser. Bögen und Tore als Ehrenmonumente in der Provinz Iudaea,
in: M. Perani (ed.), The Words of a Wise Man’s Mouth are Gracious (Qoh 10, 12). Festschrift for
G. Stemberger on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Berlin: 153-165.
Eck, W. (2007): Rom Herausfordern: Bar Kochba im Kampf Gegen das Imperium Romanum. Das Bild
des Bar Kochba – Aufstandes im Spigel der Neuen Epigraphischen Uberlieferung, Roma.
Eck, W. (2011a): Latin Dedication to Hadrian by the Beneficarii of the Governor Tineius Rufus, in:
CIIP II: 1121-2160, ad no.1276.
Eck, W. (2011b): Lucius Flavius Silva, Burger von Urbs Salvia und Eroberer von Masada (zu Picus 26,
2006, 45 ff.), Picus 31: 45-53.
Eck, W. (2012): Der Bar Kochba-Aufstand der Jahre 132-136 und seine Folgen für die Provinz Judaea/
Syria Palaestina, in: G. Urso (ed.), Iudaea Socia – Iudaea Capta, Atti del convegno internazionale
Cividale del Friuli, 22-24 settembre 2011, Pisa: 249-265.
Eck, W., Cotton, H.M. (2012): CIIP, vol. I: Jerusalem, part 2, Berlin – New York: 20-22.
Eck W., Foerster, G. (1999): Ein Triumphbogen für Hadrian im Tal von Beth Shean bei Tel Shalem,
Journal of Roman Archaeology 12: 294-313.
Eck, W., Tepper, Y. (2001): A Dedication to Silvanus near the Camp of the Legio VI Ferrata near Lajjun,
Scripta Classica Israelica 20: 85-88.
Eshel, H. (1995): The Policy of Minting Coins during the Bar Kokhba in Light of the Findings from the
Judaean Desert, Judaea and Samaria Research 5: 173-182 (Hebr.).
Eshel, H., Zissu, B., Barkai, G. (2009-2010): Sixteen Bar Kokhba Coins from Roman Sites in Europe,
Israel Numismatic Journal 17: 91-97.
Foerster, G. (1977): Galilee on the Eve of the Bar-Kokhba Revolt – The Archeological Evidence,
Cathedra 4: 77-80 (Hebr.).
Foerster, G. (1980): A Cuirassed Statue of Hadrian, Israel Museum Notes 16: 107*-110*.
Foerster, G. (1985): A Cuirassed Bronze Statue of Hadrian, Atiqot (English Version) 17: 139-157.
Foerster, G., Arubas, B., Mevorach, D. (2008): The Bronze Statue of the Emperor, the Hadrian Arch and
the Legion Camp. Returning to Tel Shalem (Hebr.). See the following site: http://www.antiquities.
org.il/article_heb.aspx?sec_id=17&sub_subj_id=493&id=136.
Gergel, R.A. (1991): The Tel Shalem Hadrian Reconsidered, American Journal of Archaeology
95: 231-251.
Gould, S. (1933): Inscriptions. I. The Triumphal Arch, in: The Excavations at Dura-Europos conducted
by Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters, vol. IV, New Haven: 56-65.
Gould, S. (1936): Supplementary Inscriptions. I. An Addition to the Inscriptions of the Arch of Trajan,
in: The Excavations at Dura-Europos conducted by Yale University and the French Academy of
Inscriptions and Letters, vol. VI, New Haven: 480-482.
Grüll, T. (2005): Fragment of a Monumental Roman Inscription at the Islamic Museum of the Haram as-Sharif (Temple Mount), Jerusalem, American Schools of Oriental Research Newsletter
55: 16-17.
Grüll, T. (2006): A fragment of a monumental Roman inscription at the Islamic Museum of the Haram
ash-Sharif, Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Journal 56: 183-200.
Halfmann, H. (1986): Itinera Principum. Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im Römischen
Reich, Stuttgart.
What Does Tel Shalem Have to Do with the Bar Kokhba Revolt?
95
Hekker, M. (1961): The Roman Road of Legio-Sepphoris, Yediot 25: 175-186 (Hebr.).
Herr, M.D. (1977), The Participation of the Galilee in the War of Qitos, and in the Bar Kosba Revolt,
Cathedra 4: 67-73 (Hebr.).
Hill, G.F. (1914): A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum: Palestine, London.
Holum, K. (1992): Hadrian and Casarea, An Episode in the Romanization of Palestine, Ancient World
23: 51-61.
Isaac, B., Roll, I. (1979a): Judaea in the Early Years of Hadrian’s Reign, Latomus 38: 54-66.
Isaac, B., Roll, I. (1979b): Legio II Traiana in Judaea, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
33: 149-156.
Isaac, B., Roll, I. (1982a): Legio II Traiana in Judaea: A Reply, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und
Epigraphik 47: 131-132.
Isaac, B., Roll, I. (1982b): Roman Roads in Judaea, Vol. 1: The Legio-Scythopolis Road, Oxford.
Isaac, B., Roll, I. (2004): Judaea in the Early Years of Hadrian’s Reign, Nofim 13-14: 41-54 (Hebr.).
Isaac, B. (1998): The Near East under Roman Rule. Selected Papers, Leiden.
Lehmann, C.M., Holum, K. (2000): The Greek and Latin Inscription of Caesarea Maritima, Boston.
Leibner, U. (2009a): Settlement and History in Hellenistic Roman and Byzantine Galilee: An Archeological Survey of the Eastern Galilee, Tübingen.
Leibner, U. (2009b): Kh. Wadi Hamam: A Village and a Synagogue from the Roman Period in Galilee,
Qadmoniot 139: 32-40 (Hebr.).
Leibner, U. (2011): Excavations at Khirbet Wadi Hamam (Lower Galilee): The Synagogue and the
Settlement, Journal of Roman Archaeology 23: 225-226.
Lewis, N. (ed.) (1989): The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters. Greek
Papyri, Jerusalem.
Magness, J. (2011): Aelia Capitolina: A review of some current debates about Hadrianic Jerusalem, in:
K. Galor, G. Avni (eds.), Unearthing Jerusalem; 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy
City, Winona Lake, IN: 313-324.
Mattingly, H. (1936): Coins of Roman Empire in the British Museum, Vol. 3: Nerva to Hadrian,
London.
Mattingly, H., Sydenhman, E.A. (1926): Roman Imperial Coinage, Vol. 2: Vespasian to Hadrian,
London.
Mazor G., Najjar, A. (2007): Beth She’an 1: Nysa-Scythopolis. The Caesareun and the Odeum,
Jerusalem.
Mildenberg, L. (1984): The Coinage of the Bar Kokhba War, Aarau.
Mor, M. (1991): The Bar Kokhba Revolt, Its Extent and Effect, Jerusalem.
Mor, M. (2003): The Geographical Scope of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, in: P. Schäfer (ed.), The Bar
Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt Against Rome, Tübingen: 107-131.
Oppenheimer, A. (1977): The Jewish Community in Galilee during the Period of Yavneh and the Bar
Kokhba Revolt, Cathedra 4: 53-66, 82-83 (Hebr.).
Oppenheimer, A. (2005): Die jüdische Bewohnerschaft Galiläas zur Zeit von Jawne und während des
Bar – kochba-Aufstands, in: A. Oppenheimer, Between Rome and Babylon. Studies in Jewish Leadership and Society, Tübingen: 225-242.
Osgood, J. (2011): Claudius Caesar. Image and Power in the Early Roman Empire, Cambridge.
Peleg, Y. (1989): Caesarea’s water supply system, in: D. Amit, Y. Hirschfeld, J. Patrich (eds.), The Aqueducts of Ancient Palestine. Research Collection, Jerusalem: 115-122 (Hebr.).
Peleg, Y. (1990): The Storage Lake of the Low Level Aqueduct to Caesarea, Cathedra 56: 19-32 (Hebr.).
Peleg, Y. (2002): The Dams of Caesarea’s Low Level Aqueduct, in: D. Amit, J. Patrich, Y. Hirschfeld
(eds.), The Aqueducts of Israel, Portsmouth, RI: 141-148.
Roll, I. (1976): The Roman Road System in the Land of Israel, Qadmoniot 9: 38-50 (Hebr.).
Roll, I. (1996): Roman Roads to Caesarea Maritima, in: A. Raban, K.G. Holum (eds.), Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia, Leiden.
96
MENAHEM MOR
Roll, I. (1999): The Roads in Roman-Byzantine Palaestina and Arabia, in: E. Alliata, M. Piccirillo
(eds.), The Madaba Map Centenary, 1897-1997: Traveling through the Byzantine Umayyad Period.
Proceedings of the International Conference held in Amman, 7-9 April 1997, Jerusalem: 109-113.
Roll, I. (2011): Roman Roads to Caesarea Maritima, in: E. Ayalon, A. Izdarechet (eds.), Caesarea Treasures: Summaries and Research on Caesarea and its Vicinity Submitted in honor of Josef Porath,
vol. 1, Jerusalem: 239-256 (Hebr.).
Roll, I. Ayalon, E. (1986/87): Main Highways in the Sharon in the Roman and Byzantine Archaeological Periods, Israel – Am ve-Aretz 4/22: 156-157.
Roll, I., Ayalon, E. (1986): Roads in Western Samaria, PEQ 118: 113-134.
Rea, J. (1980): Legio II Traiana in Judaea, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 38: 220-221.
Spijkerman, A. (1978): The Coins of the Decapolis and provincial Arabia, Jerusalem.
Tsafrir, Y., Forester, G. (1992): From Byzantine Scythopolis to Arab Baysan – Changing Urban Concept, Cathedra 64: 3-30 (Hebr.).
Tsafrir, Y., Forester, G. (1997): Urbanism at Scythopolis – Bet Shean in the Fourth to the Seventh Centuries, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 51: 85-146.
Tepper, Y. (2004): Roman Roads in the ‘Airon Pass’: Paving Remains from Caesarea to the Sixth Legion camp in Legio, in: Y. Bar Gal, N. Kliot, A. Peld (eds.), Researches in the Land of Israel, Aviel
Ron’s Book, Haifa: 47-82 (Hebr.).
Tepper, Y. (2007): The Roman legionary camp at Legio, Israel: Results of an archaeological survey and
observations on the Roman military presence at the site, in: A.S. Lewin, P. Pellegrini (eds.), The
Late Roman Army in the Near East from Diocletian to the Arab Conquest. Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at Potenza, Acerenza and Matera, Italy (May 2005), Oxford: 57-71.
Tepper, Y. (2011): 19 Miles from… Roman road from Legio to Caesarea via Ramat Menasche, in:
E. Ayalon, A. Izdarechet (eds.), Caesarea Treasures: Summaries and Research on Caesarea and its
Vicinity Submitted in honor of Josef Porath, vol. 1, Jerusalem: 257-274 (Hebr.).
Tracy, S. (1998): An Imperial Inscription from Petra, in: M. Joukowsky (ed.), Petra Great Temple,
vol. I, Brown University Excavations 1993-1997, Providence: 370-375.
Tracy, S. (1999): The dedicatory inscription to Trajan at the ‘metropolis’ of Petra, in: J.H. Humphery (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near East, vol. II: Some Recent Archaeological Research,
Portsmouth, RI: 51-58.
Tzori, N. (1971): An Inscription of the Legio VI Ferrata from the Northern Jordan Valley, Israel Exploration Journal 21: 53-54.
Welles, G.B. (1938): The Inscriptions, in: C.H. Kraeling, Gerasa, City of the Decapolis, New Haven.